Factors Influencing University Selection

A STUDY OF FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH
STUDENT CHOICE IN THE

UNIVERSITY SELECTION PROCESS
<g)
ROSLYN LOUISE KELLY BESWICK

B.Ed., University of Lethbridge, 1973
A Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty of Education
of The University of Lethbridge
in Partial Fulfilment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF EDUCATION
LETHBRIDGE, ALBERTA
October, 1989
Abstract
Every year university bound graduating high school

students are faced with the problem of selecting a post
secondary institution.
The selection process typically
spans a number of years and involves considering many

factors.
Identifying those factors that influence
students during the selection process was the goal of

this study.
Two hundred twenty-seven first year
university students attending one of three degree

granting institutions in Alberta were surveyed by means
of a questionnaire to determine those factors
considered during the university selection process.
Correlations, means, analyses of variance and
qualitative data provided the statistical and
descriptive information for interpretation.
The principal finding of this study was that
parents, particularily mothers, are the most
influential persons reported to affect the process.
The factors which tend to be important to students at
the University of Alberta were not the same factors
important to students attending Camrose Lutheran
iii
College and the University of Lethbridge, the two

smaller universities.
University of Alberta students
value reputation of the institution, reputation of the

program, variety of courses offered, and proximity to
home as important factors in their choice.
Camrose
Lutheran College and University of Lethbridge students

value low student/professor ratio, low student
population, and reputation of institution.
This study may provide an increase in
understanding of the selection process and thus assist
those involved in guiding students through the process.
iv
Acknowledgements
The writer wishes to extend sincere appreciation

to Dr- M y m a Greene for her guidance and supervision
throughout all phases of this research work.
Thanks is also expressed to Dr. Nancy Grigg and
Dr. Eugene Falkenberg who served as committee members.
My sincere thanks goes to Dr. Erwin Miklos for his
encouragement during the early stages of the work and
his thoughtful suggestions and comments regarding the
final draft.
The cooperation of the three universities involved
made this research possible.
In such a study numerous
students also play a part in the outcome, so a special

thank you to each student who participated.
My heartfelt thanks to my son, Matthew, for his
assistance with the computer work; to my daughter,
Virginia, for her enthusiasm; to my sister, Marilyn,
for her encouragement; and to my husband, Ken, for his
unwavering faith in my ability to complete the study.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables
ix
List of Figures
1.
2.
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
Purpose of the Study
Significance of the Problem
Delimitations and Limitations
Assumptions
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction
Process Approaches
12
Factors Approach
18
Specific Factors
3.
24
Summary
27
Expanding Research
28
Research Questions
29
METHOD
30
Participants
30
Selection of University Students
30
Selection on the Basis of Location
31
vi
Sample Selection
Instrumentation
32
Nature of the Instrument
34
Validating the Questionnaire
38
Data Collection
39
Data Analysis
41
Research Question 1
41
Research Question 2
42
Research Question 3
43
Research Question 4
43
Summary
4.
32
44
RESULTS
45
Characteristics of Students
45
Gender
45
Grade 12 Average
45
Degree
52
Distance from Home
54
Family Backgrounds
54
Education Level of Fathers

and Mothers
54
Occupations of Fathers and Mothers
58
Family Tradition
61
vii
Values and Goals
64
Sources of Information and Influence

and Factors of Significance
5-
68
Final Choice
75
Qualitative Analysis
77
Summary
78
DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS, IMPLICATIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
Major Findings According to
81
Research Questions
81
Research Question 1
82
Research Question 2
87
Research Question 3
88
Research Question 4
39
Implications for Institutions
89
U Of A
91
C L C
91
U Of L
93
Recommendations for Further Research

References
93
95
Appendices
Appendix A- Volunteer Consent Letter
100
Appendix 8. Questionnaire
102
viii
TABLE
LIST OF TABLES
Self-Reported Grade 12 Averages of

Respondents
Percentage Distribution of Respondents at

Each Institurion by Degree Sought
Percentage Distributions by Occupation of

Mothers and Fathers of Respondents
Percentage Distribution of Respondents by

Grade Levels at Which They First
Considered Attending University
Percentage of Respondents Indicating Whether

or Not They Have Future Plans for Study
Beyond a Baccalaureate
Percentage of Respondents Indicating

Whether or Not Program Choice was
Affected by Economic Opportunities
Percentage of Respondents at Each

Institution Indicating Relative
Importance of Selected Persons

Institution Indicating Relative
Importance of Sources of Information
and Influence

Institution Indicating Significance
of Selected Factors
10
Frequency of Mention of Reasons for Not

Attending the First Choice University
ix
FIGURE
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
Model of Influences on Student College Choice
15
A Three Phase Model of College Choice
19
Percentage of Female and Male Respondents
46
Distribution of Self-Reported Grade 12

Averages of U of A Respondents
49

Averages of C L C Respondents
50

Averages of U of L Respondents
51
Comparison of Respondents at Three

Institutions on Distance from
Family Home to School
55
Comparison of Respondents on Education

Level of Father
57
Comparison of Respondents on Education

Level of Mother
57
Percentage of Fathers of Respondents

Who Attended Same University
62
Percentage of Mothers of Respondents

62
Percentage of Brothers of Respondents

63
Percentage of Sisters of Respondents

63
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM
Introduct ion
Every year graduating high school students are
faced with the problem of having to decide on future
career paths.
The decision whether or not to continue
with post secondary education and the choice of an

institution to attend are two critical decisions that
students make at this time in their lives (Johnson &
Chapman, 1979).
For those students considering
attending a university, the selection process probably

assumes high priority.
This process typically spans a
number of years and may have begun in early childhood

when prospective students develop perceptions of
universities and university life (Maguire & Lay, 1981).
Many factors probably affect the final decision.
Graduating high school students may have only a vague
notion of future educational needs and benefits
(Litten, Sullivan, & Brodigan, 1983), however, the
university selection process allows students to
investigate various alternatives.
Identifying factors
that have been considered by recent high school
2
graduates in Alberta in this decision-making process
was the goal of this study.
Purpose of the Study

The process of college or university selection and
the factors of significant influence have been a
frequent research topic during the past fifteen years.
The anticipated decrease in enrollment in the late
1970s and early 1980s forced universities and colleges
to examine future markets.
Numerous variables that
affected the choice process were examined in an attempt

to understand and ultimately to affect that process.
Researchers surveyed students and others involved
to determine factors of influence.
Most of the studies
have focused on the United States where the population

of students, variety of institutions, and financial
environments differ greatly from the Canadian
situation.
The 1988 fall registration predictions in Alberta
indicated that colleges and universities were in a
selecting situation.
There was an abundance of
applications for a limited number of spaces.

Government reductions in financial grants to
3
institutions limited the enrollments and program
offerings created a shortage of space.
During times of
spaca shortage, understanding the influential factors

in the selection process is even more important so that
universities can affect the process and attract
students most likely to succeed.
The purpose of this study was to identify factors
considered by Alberta students to be significant in the
process of choosing a university to attend.
The study
involved only new students who were enrolled in a

degree granting institution in Alberta.
These students
had completed the process of selecting a college or

university and were asked to reflect on the process.
Significance of the Problem

In terms of academic interest, the study has
potential to contribute to what is already known about
the process of choosing a college or university.
Characteristics of decisions made by students to enter
particular colleges or universities are not well
understood (Puffet, 1983).
The study may increase
knowledge about factors that are considered

influential.
A variety of significant factors may be
4
considered by Alberta high school graduates; some of
these factors may be specific to students enrolled in a
particular institution.
The study also has a highly practical
significance-
The results should be of interest to
post secondary institutions (particularly colleges and

universities), to high schools, and to those involved
in similar recruiting processes.
Post secondary
institutions invest considerable resources in

advertising with the hope of attracting the best
students for the number of seats available.
The
results of the study may yield insight into the

importance and effectiveness of marketing approaches
and the relative importance of the information
disseminated by the institution to prospective
students.
High schools and advisors involved with students
making this decision may gain greater insight into the
process as a result of this study.
An awareness and
understanding of the selection process and those

factors that students consider influential is critical
to personnel working with students during this
selection process and should assist advisors in helping
5
students make appropriate choices.
Students are viewed as educational consumersDeciding to invest in a university education presents
relatively high risks to the student.
Guseman (cited
in Litten, Sullivan, & Brodigan, 1983) describes the

choice of college as risky because it is an infrequent
"purchase" with a high degree of personal importance,
somewhat expensive and accomplished within i small
number of alternatives.
It is classified as credence
goods and requires special consideration; ideally,

students should make informed choices.
The economic survival of a college or university
depends on students selecting the appropriate
institution and successfully completing the program;
consequently, institutions should attempt to attract
those students who will succeed.
Parental involvement in the selection process may
vary from minor to significant.
Parents generally
provide guidance and financial assistance.
The results
of this study may help parents to understand the

process, the factors involved, and the contribution
which they make.
Many researchers have concluded that the student
6
makes the final decision regarding choice of
institution (Murphy, 1981; MacDermott, Conn, & Owen,
1987)-
However, the student seldom makes the final
decision alone since the choice process likely involves

dialogue between and among students, parents, advisors,
teachers, friends, relatives, and representatives from
institutions (Change. 1986).
By determining what
proportion of the decision is assumed by the student

and what proportion is assumed by significant other
individuals, major decision makers can be identified.
This information may assist in developing more
appropriate communication between the decision maker
and the information sources.
Delimitations and Limitations

The study was delimited to recent grade twelve
graduates who enrolled at the University of Lethbridge,
Camrose Lutheran College, or the University of Alberta
in the fall of 1988.
This selection excluded students
who had completed grade twelve prior to April 1988 and

who had had an opportunity to gain more experience.
The questionnaire was distributed during orientation
sessions in September and October 1988.
7
Only two hundred twenty-seven students were
involved in the study.
A larger sample
would have been advantageous, however, the cost

involved made this option impractical for the
researcher.
A further limitation of the study is that
results are valid only at the time of the research and

within the parameters as described in this report.
Generalizing to students in other locations or
situations should be made with caution.
The study is retrospective.
Participants were
asked to reflect and recall situations and decisions

that occurred in the past.
Although most of the
questions refer to the recent past, the problem of

accurate recollection must be considered. On the other
hand, the time lapse may have served to gain a more
objective description of factors affecting choice in
that the responses were less "coloured" by an
emotionalism which may have initially surrounded the
choice.
Individuals participating may also have felt a
need to justify their choice; this tendency must be

considered a possible limitation.
As well,
participation in the study was voluntary; volunteer

subjects are likely to be a biased sample of the target
8
population (Borg & Gall, 1983).
Consideration was
given to the degree to which the characteristics of the

volunteer sample might affect research results.
Those
characteristics are addressed individually in the

conclusions of the study.
Assumptions
The study was based on several assumptions
including the following:
(1) that students do not
carry out the university or college selection process

in a vacuum (Puffet, 1983); (2) that students have
opinions about which environmental factors are involved
in the decision; (3) that students have opinions about
who is influential in the decision; (4; that students
would be willing and capable of providing the
information sought; and (5) that students answered the
questionnaire accurately.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
Prior to 1970 little research was done on the
college selection process and factors that influence
the process.
Admissions staff at colleges and
universities were concerned with selecting and

rejecting students rather than with recruiting high
school seniors.
The anticipated decline in college
applications and the resulting decreased enrollment

motivated post secondary administrators to search for
more effective ways to attract new students
(Chapman, 1981).
A closer examination of the process
of college selection was necessary to search for new

ways to affect the process.
This need produced
research literature suggesting different systematic

models of influences on college choice.
More recently, the concern regarding public
spending on post secondary institutions, student
financial aid, and student access has produced an
increased interest in the area of choice research.
Growing competition for limited space has resulted in a
trend to market-oriented research which is particularly
10
useful to institutions wishing to attract and retain
the best students.
The literature dealing with the college selection
process and factors that influence the process has
focused on the central characteristics of the students
choice process.
Several models of the process have
been developed to assist college administrators who are

responsible for implementing recruitment policy.
Their
need to understand the process and to be able to

identify the pressures and influences involved when
developing recruiting policy has been recognized
(Chapman, 1981).
General conceptual models of student
college choice that specify significant influences or

"variable sets" and their interrelationships can be
used as a resource for guiding both future inquiry and
current admissions practices (Chapman, 1981).
Identifying lists of factors considered in the
selection process has been the subject of several
studies.
Students and/or parents and/or counselors
have been surveyed to establish the criteria involved

in the process.
This has produced data for further
research that has focused on specific influences and

the relevance of the selected influences to the
11
process.
Many of these studies have been sponsored by
institutions and administered by their own staff.

There is general agreement among researchers about
the factors that are considered the most important in
the choice process.
Having an understanding of these
factors and process has prompted researchers to compare

choices made between institutions, to rate individual
factors, and to assess the impact of changing external
and internal influences on the selection process.
Because the evolution of research dealing with the
selection process has focused on specific stages and
establishing influences, rather than refining the
process, a variety of studies not easily grouped has
been produced.
The review begins with an examination of process
approaches used by researchers to explain the series of
steps or stages believed to be used by students during
the selection process.
The models include a multi
stage approach, a six stage approach, and a variety of

three stage approaches to the process of college
selection.
These approaches vary in the starting point
of the process and the inclusion of various influencing

factors.
A review of studies using factor approaches
12
follows.
The factor approach involves basically the
survey research method which has produced lists of

factors that have affected the university or college
selection process.
The last category of literature
focuses on specific factors within the process.
Process Approaches
The first major detailed analysis of the college
selection process which was developed by Lewis and
Morrison in 1975 (cited in Sullivan & Brodigan, 1983),
set the stage for further studies.
High school seniors
were interviewed every other week throughout the senior

years in high school.
The findings of the study
provided a list of 13 components or stages in the

selection process.
A less complicated six-step process
was later suggested by Kolter (1976).
More recent
studies have focused on the process of college

selection using a three-stage approach.
A three-stage model designed by Kohn, Manski, and
Mundel (1974) suggests that the first stage concerns
the option of commuting to campus from home, or living
on campus.
This choice is determined by the distance
from home to college, the family income, and other
13
variables.
The second stage concerns the choice of the
"best" college available, given the residency decision

made at the first stage.
The "best" choice college is
affected by the following variables:
tuition, board
and room charges, average student ability, field

breadth, per student revenues, family income ability,
and distance from college.
The third stage is the
choice of whether to enroll at this "best" college or

not at all.
The variables affecting this stage are
determined by parental education, student sex, family

income, and the attractiveness of the "best" college
alternatives.
Kohn, Manski, and Mundel's (1974)
perspective on the selection process is unique because

it is the first study to focus on a three-stage
approach to the process and is often referred to in
more recent reports of research.
Several studies in this decade have focused on the
three-stage approach using similar categories; that is,
deciding to attend a post secondary institution,
examining the options, and making the choice (Hossler &
Gallagher, 1987; Litten, Sullivan, & Brodigan, 1983;
and Chapman, 1981).
starting point;
These models all share the same
the student is preselected as
14
university or college bound, but differ from the Kohn
et al- model because the issue of commuting is not
addressed.
Chapman's (1981) three-stage model (Figure 1) of
student college choice is longitudinal and proposes
that, to understand a student's choice, it is essential
to consider both background and current
characteristics, the student's family, and the
characteristics of the college (Chapman, 1981).
Components of the model are identified as either
student characteristics or external influences, such as
the influence of significant persons, the fixed
characteristics of the institution, and the
institution's own efforts to communicate with
prospective students.
These factors combined with the
student's general expectation of college life determine

the final choice.
The Chapman model appears in some ways to be
simplistic because it identifies only two sets of
influencing factors.
However, the variety of variables
listed within the sets suggests a complexity that has

been recognized by other researchers concerned with the
choice process.
The complexity of this model offers a
15
STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS
SES
APTITUDE
Level of Education
Aspiration
High School
Performance
ENTRY
TO COLLEGE
EXTERNAL INFLUENCES
SIGNIFICANT PERSONS
COLLEGE'S
CHOICE OF
STUDENTS
Friends
Parents
High School
Personnel
GENERAL EXPECTATION
OF COLLEGE LIFE
FIXED COLLEGE
CHARACTERISTICS
Cost (Financial
Aid)
Location
Availability Of
Program
STUDENT'S
CHOICE OF
COLLEGE(S)
COLLEGE EFFORTS
TO COMMUNICATE
iJITH STUDENTS
Written Information
Campus Visit
Admissions/Recruit
ing
Figure 1.
Model of Influences on Student College Choice

(Adapted from Chapman, 1981)
16
variety of variables for researchers to investigate, to
control, or to ignore.
The Chapman model is frequently
referred to in later studies that have focused on

variables included in the model.
There are three limitations to the Chapman model.
By defining the traditional college student age (18-21)
and limiting the study to that group of students.
Chapman has effectively avoided a greater number of
student characteristics.
Including students older than
the traditional age would necessitate including special

pressures and influences peculiar to older students.
Characteristics of the institution are fixed because
institutions tend to define the situation in the shortterm.
If changes are being made such as program
additions or deletions, those changes usually involve

several levels of authorization resulting in long
periods of time between changes.
This model is not as
flexible as those designed by more recent researchers

who consider interaction between the student and the
organizational factors much earlier in the process.
More recent three-stage models have addressed the
limitations of the Chapman model.
A
three-stage development model of college choice
17
is outlined by Litten (1982).
This includes a first
stage that begins with the intention of attending a

college or university, culminating with the decision to
attend.
The second stage in this process includes the
consideration of choices of institutions.
The third
stage includes the application for admission,

acceptance, and enrollment of the student.
The model
differs from the Chapman model because financial

considerations are included in the decision making
process.
This model focuses on process and detailed
external factors not mentioned by Chapman.

Hossler and Gallagher (1987) present another
three-phase model that reflects the work of both
Jackson (1982) and Litten (1982).
This interactive
model includes both the attributes of the student and

the organizational factors at the pre-college and
college level.
Factors that are influenced by
government and institutional policy at various stages

in the process are also included.
The stages have been
labelled predisposition, search, and choice.

The first phase, predisposition, is basically a
development stage that allows students the choice of
college or university or other options.
The second
18
phase, search, describes the active investigating
students undertake to become familiar with the college
or university alternatives.
The outcome of this phase
is the "choice set" or that list of institutions to

which a student will apply (Hossler & Gallagher, 1987).
The third phase, choice, describes the final single
student choice.
Because this model is uniquely interactive,
accommodating an extensive variety of factors, it was
used as the basis for the present study.
In addition
to individual factors, organizational factors and the

range of pre-college school experiences are
accommodated in this model.
The diagram presented as
Figure 2 demonstrates the opportunity of these factors

to exert modest influence on the choice process.
The
present study focused on the "influential factors"

considered by students during phases one, two, and
three.
Factors Approach
Establishing lists of factors considered
significant by students has frequently been a goal of
researchers.
Although the studies reviewed were based
19
Model
Dimensions
Influential Factors
Predisposition
(Phase One)
Individual
Factors
Organi sati onal

Factors
Student
charac
teristics
School Charac
teristics
Significant
others
Student Outcomes
Search For:
a. college
options
b. other
options
Educational
activities
Search
(Phase Two)
Student pre
liminary
college values
College and
university
search
activities
(Search for
students)
a. choice set
College and
university
courtship
activities
Choice
D. other options
Student search
activities
Choice
(Phase Three)
Choice set
Figure 2.
A Three Phase Model of College Choice
(Adapted from Hossler & Gallagher, 1987)
20
in the United States, the literature is relevant to the
present study.
Many factors considered during the
selection process probably are also relevant in CanadaThese include student characteristics, institutional
characteristics, institutional activities, and persons
of influence.
Factors which may differ in relevance
include tuition costs, financial aid, and entrance

examinations.
Unfortunately, many studies that focus
on the reasons why students choose a particular college

are specific to that institution and not available for
review (Litten & Brodigan, 1982).
For example, Camrose
Lutheran College has completed "in house" research on

factors of influence to establish student preference
and goals and to identify the important features of the
college.
An extensive study by Bowers and Pugh (1983)
surveyed four thousand Indiana University freshmen and
their parents to identify and to rank 22 influences
that are considered in the selection process.
Since
most studies solicit only student opinion, this study

is of particular importance because both parents and
students were asked to rate the factors.
The ratings
were then compared for similarities in judgements.
21
Both groups rated academic reputation of the
university and specific reputation of the department or
school as the two most important factors in the
selection process.
The results indicated that although
the students and parents were in agreement with the

rating of the first two important influences, there
tended to be disagreement regarding the relative
importance of social climate and finance.
Financial,
geographical, and academic factors were more important

to parents than to students, while students placed more
value on social and cultural, and informal factors.
Comparative ratings were established by Litten
(1979) to predict matriculation at Carleton University
in Minnesota.
Litten appears to be a foremost
researcher in this field and has published several

studies focusing on marketing concerns.
5s particularly noteworthy.
The 1979 study
From a list of 22
variables, the following were found to be the most

important factors for accepted applicants from two
regions:
East - social atmosphere, academic quality,
geographic location, and cost; North Central - social

atmosphere, academic quality, cost, and geographic
location.
22
The Litten (1979) study established the nature of
the market segment or student population from which a
specific school draws.
The conclusions of the study
were relevant to the dilemma faced by institutions that

have identified strengths that are valued by the
students and were deciding factors in the selection
process.
The dilemma involves the choice of
capitalizing on those favored factors by strengthening

them at the risk of losing those students who valued
"the old ways" and other factors.
Similar research at the University of California
(cited in Litten & Brodigan, 1982) surveyed students to
rate variables and sources of information according to
the influence of each factor.
categories reported were:
The five general
academic program attributes,
environmental factors, academic support aspects,

student life factors, and educational outcomes.
Ratings on these factors varied widely.
Information
factors were listed in the following order of

importance:
parents and immediate family, catalogs or
college publications, college representatives, current

students, and high school counsellors.
Research conducted recently at Washington State
23
University by Sanders (1986) is relevant because of the
geographic proximity of the study to Alberta.
Sanders (1986) identified eight factors students judged
most important when selecting a college.
These factors
we.~e grouped into four categories for analysis:
those
pertaining to academic environment, the cost/value

added environment, the living environment, and the
peer/adult influence.
This study was initialed because
of threatened decreases in enrollment and the

recognized need to gather data to assist in identifying
the wants and needs of students.
Faced with a similar economic situation and in an
attempt to enhance the image of Cornell University,
Lolli and Scannell (1983) utilized information obtained
by collecting data from matriculants who were asked to
rate Cornell and their second choice school on each of
28 variables.
Students identified the three most
important factors influencing their decision to enroll

to be general reputation of institution, location of
campus, and size of student body.
The findings of this
study enabled Cornell University to implement a broad

based program of information focusing on
characteristics identified as important to students.
24
The research also demonstrated that a wealth of
information is collected during the admissions
operation and that universities could use these data to
facilitate a better understanding of current conditions
and future trends facing the institution (Lolli &
Scannell, 1983).
Specific Factors
The role of parents in the college selection
process is complex and not disputed; parents wield
significant power.
Other individuals influence
students but parents appear to be the most influential

(Puffet, 1983; Murphy, 1981; Litten & Brodigan, 1982;
Conklin & Dailey, 1981; and MacDermott, Conn, &
Owen, 1987).
Research literature dealing with parental
influence focuses on how parents shape their children's

post secondary plans, the qualities sought in a
college, parental expectations of student undergraduate
years, the influence of parental education level on the
final choice, and parental perceptions of " consumer"
roles in college choice.
Conklin and Dailey (1981)
concluded that:
the longer post-secondary education has been taken
for granted in the home, the more likely students
25
are to enter college. It may be that the more
time both respondent and parents have had to
reflect upon and act on the preparations for
college attendance (curriculum and finances), the
more realistic are the plans (p. 261).
The early introduction and reinforcement of future
college participation was confirmed by Murphy (1981)
when students were asked to indicate the grade level at
which they started thinking about attending university.
A majority of respondents indicated earliest
recollections to be during elementary school years.
Parents surveyed by the Carnegie Foundation
(Change. November/December, 1986) expressed a strong
desire for their children to attend college despite the
high cost.
College is perceived to be:
one of the principal strategies employed by

American families to sustain or improve the social
and economic position of their children, and to
enhance the quality of their children's lives
(P. 31).
Most parents appear to believe that graduation from a
good school will improve chances of favourable
employment; consequently parents take an active
interest in the selection of the college.
Parental education level is related to student
college choice.
Ihlanfeldt (1980) concluded that
26
students whose parents did not attend college were
likely to chose a college close to home.
Although few
students travel more than five hundred miles from home

to attend university (Astin, 1985), those students
whose parents have a college education are more likely
to have a broad or national scope of selection (Zemsky
& Oedel, 1983; MacDermott, Conn, & Owen, 1987).
Two studies have concluded that the final choice
of a college rests with the student.
Murphy found that
students whose parents had a college education had a

tendency to make the choice themselves and that the
parents appreciated the student's need to exercise this
option.
MacDermott, Conn, and Owen (1987) refer to
this as parental veto.
Students in their study were
permitted to make a choice, even though it may not have

been the first choice of the parents.
Parents stated
that their contribution to the decision came earlier in

the process when institutions were first being
discussed.
The final list of colleges was acceptable
to them and the final choice made by the student.

An abundance of literature has been published on
the cost factor as it affects the college or university
choice process.
The American situation provides a
27
variety of public and private institutions that vary
from easily affordable to very expensive.
Summary
Recent literature concerned with the college or
university selection process and the factors involved
in that process appears to reflect a response to a need
to understand the selection process and influential
factors.
This need has been recognized by
universities and colleges and motivated by the desire

to improve marketing strategies.
The literature can be grouped according to focus.
The first studies propose models of the selection
process and identify the stages within the process.
Many similarities are evident among the suggested
models.
The most recent models incorporate the work of
earlier researchers.
The second category of literature
establishes lists of factors involved in the process.

These survey type studies usually produce a list of
factors involved in the process and rank factors in
order of importance.
The third category addresses
specific factors of great interest in the process.
28
The majority of the literature available reflects
the post secondary situation in the United States.
There is also an abundance of literature that addresses
the funding variations among institutions in the United
States.
The Canadian situation is basically a publicly
funded system and was not available in the literature.
Expanding Research
Using the Hossler and Gallagher (1987) model of
college choice, this study attempted to identify a list
of factors that were considered by students at three
Alberta institutions when selecting a university.
The
study focused on the influencing factors in the

predisposition, search, and choice phases of the
selection process.
This included identifying sources
of information and individuals considered influential,

and establishing student characteristics such as
gender, ability, values, and goals.
The occupations
and educational background of the family were

identified as possible factors affecting the selection
process.
29
Research Questions
Four specific questions were addressed in this
study.
1.
What factors influence students when they choose a

university?
Specific factors explored include:
a)
sources of information;
b)
influential individuals;
c)
characteristics of student, such as gender,

ability, values, goals, and family; and,
d)
characteristics and activities of

institutions.
2.
What are the factors of influence specific to

students choosing the same university?
3.
How have economic opportunities affected student

choice?
4.
Is there a relationship between the socio-economic

status of the parents and the college or
university selection process?
CHAPTER 3
METHOD
In this descriptive study data were collected in three

locations through use of the questionnaire survey
method without deliberate manipulation of variables or
control over the research settings.
Participants
Selection of University Students
Several thousand university students are enrolled
in colleges and universities in Alberta.
All of those
students will hr.ve experienced a selection process

either hastily or with deliberation over varying
periods of time.
Because this study was retrospective,
students who had most recently completed the selection

process were chosen as the target population.
The
researcher attempted to control the effects of

judgement based on work experience by selecting first
year university students who had completed grade twelve
in April or June 1988.
31
Selection on the Basis of Location
Three degree granting institutions within the
province of Alberta were selected for the study.
The
diversity among the institutions regarding student

population, location, variety of program offerings,
physical setting, cultural and religious environment,
and reputation were factors considered in the
selection.
The University of Alberta (student population
28,804) is a large university located in a major urban
centre.
A variety of academic programs is offered.
The freshmen class of 1988 was approximately 6000

students.
The University of Lethbridge (student population
3,140) is a smaller university located in a small city
in the southern part of the province.
It is a liberal
arts institution offering some professional and

transfer programs.
The freshmen class of 1988 was
approximately 1700 students.

Camrose Lutheran College (student population 800)
is a small, private, church affiliated liberal arts
college located in a small city in central Alberta.
Many transfer programs are also offered.
The freshmen
32
class of 1988 was approximately 475 students.
Camrose
Lutheran College is the smallest of the three

institutions selected-
Sample Selection
Approximately 227 students participated in the
study:
107 at the University of Alberta, 70 at the
University of Lethbridge, and 50 at Camrose Lutheran

College.
The sample size from each institution was
large enough to permit statistical analysis of the data

and at the same time small enough to be practical for
data collection.
With the cooperation of the
participating university, the researcher solicited the

required number of students to participate in the study
by asking for volunteers during the registration or
library orientation sessions.
Instrumentation
From a review of the literature on questionnaire
design and use (Borg & Gall, 1983), the advantages and
disadvantages of a questionnaire survey method of data
collection were considered.
The decision to use a
questionnaire was based on the following advantages:
1.
compared to other methods of data collecting,

it is relatively inexpensive;
2.
questionnaires are suitable for large

samples;
3.
questionnaires are relatively easy for

volunteers to complete; and,
4.
questionnaires take less time to complete

than other data gathering methods such as
personal interv iews.
Questionnaires do have disadvantages as well.

Some of these are as follows:
1.
some people may have a personal bias against

questionnaires.
This bias may be the result
of past experiences with questionnaires, a

common research method used to collect data
on public opinion;
2.
factors within the questionnaire or

collection situation such as wording, order,
format, timing, and setting may bias
responses; and,
3.
establishing the validity of responses

presents a major limitation.
While these limitations were recognized, a
34
questionnaire was constructed by the investigator,
utilizing information derived from similar studies by
Sanders (1986), Lolli and Scannell (1983), Litten,
Sullivan, and Brodigan (1983), and Erdmann (1983).
The questionnaire was designed to collect information
about:
parents and family; values and goals of both
the stude.it and parents; sources of influence and

information; factors of significance; final choice; and
personal background information.
Nature of the Instrument

The questionnaire which is included in Appendix B,
was divided into six separate sections.
Most questions
could be answered by checking the appropriate space.

Questions involving rating of factors were designed
with a six-point rating scale following each factor.
few open-ended questions with sufficient space

following to allow the student to answer were also
included.
Explanation and discussion preceded all
questions.
Part A focused on parents and family.
The first
question asked the formal education level of parents

and was answered by checking the appropriate box.
This
question and the third and fourth questions which asked

for the occupation of both mother and father together
addressed the research question:
"Is there a
relationship between the socio-economic status of the

parents and the university selection process?"
The
second question in Part A asked if any 5_mmediate

members of the family had attended this university.
The intend was to discover any traditional allegiance
to a particular institution.
research question:
It also addressed the
"Are there factors of influence
specific to students choosing the same university?"

Part B examined values and goals of the student.
Questions #1, 2, 3, and 4 were designed to ascertain
the personal value placed on a university education and
the personal educational goals of the student.
Question #3 in Part F also addressed this issue.
These
questions related directly to the first research

question:
"What factors do students consider when
choosing a university?" particularly in relation to

characteristics of the student, such as gender,
ability, values, goals, and family.
Part B Questions #5 and 6 examined the effects, if
any, of the future employment opportunities on the
36
decision to attend a specific university and to select
a specific program-
These questions addressed two
research questions:
"How have economic opportunities
in the province affected student choice?" and "Are

there factors of influence common to students choosing
the same university?"
Questions #5 and 6 were open-
ended so that students could indicate specific reasons

regarding their choice-
Information gained from these
open-ended questions provided qualitative data and were

intended to supplement closed-ended questions.
Parts C and D consisted of lists of sources of
information and influence and factors of significance.
The lists were based on previous studies by Sanders
(1986), Lolli and Scannell (1983), Litten, Sullivan,
and Brodigan (1983), and Erdmann (1983).
Recommendations from universities participating in this
study were also included in the list of factors.
Students were asked to rate the importance of each item
by circling the appropriate number.
A six-point Likert
scale with 5 assigned to high importance and 0 to no

importance was placed next to each item listed.
Space
was left at the end for students to list and rate

sources not included but personally important to the
37
student.
Parts c and D addressed the first research
question:
"What factors do students consider when
choosing a university?" in relation to sources of

information, influential individuals, and
characteristics of the institution.
Part E examined the final choice made by students.
Question #1 was developed to determine whether students
had seriously considered more than one institution
during the choice process.
Question #2 was designed to
identify the most important factors considered by the

students.
This question addressed the research
question: " What are the factors of influence specific

to students choosing the same university?"
Question #3
applied only to students who were not attending their

first choice university.
Question #4 was an open-ended
question that allowed the student to comment on the

quality of the choice that was made.
Question #5 was
designed to determine if the student or the parent made

the final choice of which institution to attend.
Part F contained four short questions dealing with
personal background data.
Questions #1 and 2 asked
gender and grade 12 average.

the study question:
These questions addressed
"What factors do students consider
38
when choosing a university?" with reference to
characteristics of student, such as gender and ability.
Question #3 asked what degree the student hopes to
earn.
This also addressed the same research question
and pertains to goals.
Question #4 was designed to
determine if proximity to home was an important factor

considered during the choice process.
The data
gathered from this question were compared with a

similar question in Part D that asked the student to
rate closeness to home as an influential factor.
Validating the Questionnaire

The questionnaire was validated by three small
groups as part of the development process.
The first
group consisted of six graduate students studying at

the University of Alberta who were experienced in the
use of questionnaire surveys.
The critical comments
regarding style, format, and appropriateness of

questions suggested by this group were helpful.
The second validation was conducted in June 1988,
using a group of seven university bound grade twelve
students.
It was assumed that this group would be
nearing completion of the selection process and would
39
be able to complete most of the Questions on the
questionnaire.
The group provided useful critical
comments on the appropriateness and wording of

questions.
The questionnaire was given to faculty members at
the University of Lethbridge and Camrose Lutheran
College.
In both cases additional questions were
suggested and critical comment was provided regarding

format.
After these pretests, minor changes were made
to the questionnaire.
Data Collection
The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of
the University of Lethbridge.
Permission to gather
data at the University of Alberta (U of A), Camrose

Lutheran College (C L C), and the University of
Lethbridge (U of L) was acquired after submitting a
final draft of the questionnaire to each institutionStudents consented to participate by volunteering to
complete the questionnaire.
An explanatory letter (see
Appendix A) attached to each questionnaire stated the

purpose of the research, the role of the student, and
the ethical implications for consideration.
40
The questionnaire was administered to students at
the University of Lethbridge during orientation
sessions held in August 1988.
The researcher collected
35 completed questionnaires at two orientation

sessions.
A student advisor who was present during the
initial collection administered the remaining 33

questionnaires at orientation sessions held one week
later.
Students at Camrose Lutheran College completed the
questionnaire during orientation sessions held in
September 1988.
The researcher collected 34 completed
questionnaires at three orientation sessions.
student advisor who was present during the initial

collection administered the remaining 15 questionnaires
at functions for freshmen held on campus during the
next few days.
The questionnaire was administered to students at
the University of Alberta during library orientation
sessions held in September and October 1988.
The
researcher collected 73 completed questionnaires at 15

sessions.
The remaining 34 questionnaires were
administered and collected by a graduate student who

was conducting the library orientation program and had
41
been present during several previous sessions.
Data Analyses
The responses of the 227 participating students to
the questionnaire are described using frequency counts
and percentages.
The Statistical Program for the
Social Sciences X (SPSSX) at the University of Alberta,

Division of Educational Research Services, was used to
prepare and analyze the data.
Where appropriate,
statistical tests such as t-tests and analysis of

variance were used to determine the significance of
differences between and among groups.
Statistical
significance was assumed when the alpha level was less

than or equal to .05.
As well, several open-ended
questions generating qualitative data were analysed to

establishing themes or apparent trends.
Research Question 1:
What factors influence students
when they choose a university?

Areas of examination included:
a)
sources of information,
b)
individuals of influence,
c)
characteristics of student, such as
42
gender, ability, values, goals, and
family.
The analysis of the data collected in response to those
questionnaire items that addressed this question
were
primarily descriptive, e.g., frequencies, percentages,

means, standard deviations, and rankings.
presented in tables and graphs.
The data are
This includes data
gathered from:
Part B
#1,2,3, and 4
Part C
#1-14
Part D
#1-17
Part F
#1-2
Data from part E provided an alternative and more

qualitative approach to addressing Question #1 and was
analyzed descriptively to validate information obtained
from Parts C and D.
Analysis of variance was used to
determine possible differential effects of factors such

as gender, parental achievement, students goals, and
values.
What are the factors of influence
specific to students choosing the same university?

The analysis of the data collected in response to
those questions that addressed the second research
43
question involved calculation of frequencies and
qualitative analysis of open-ended questions.
This
included data gathered from the following questions:

Part A
#9-12
Part B
#4-6
Part D
#1-17
Part E and F
only #2.
In addition, graphs and tables similar to those

prepared to address Research Question 1 were utilized.
Where appropriate, analysis of variance procedures were
used to determine whether there were significant
differences among the groups.
How has the economic situation
affected student choice?

The data collected in response to those questions
that addressed this research question required
qualitative analysis.
This included data gathered
through the following questions:

Part B
#5 and 6
Part E
#4
Is there a relationship between
the socio-economic status of the parents and the

college or university selection process?
Data from Part A #1-8, 13, and 14 were used to
44
develop categories of socio-economic status for
parents.
Non-parametric statistics such as chi-sguare
were used to determine whether socio-economic status

was a factor in university choice.
Summary
The purpose of this chapter was to discuss the

development and validation of the instrument, and the
assumptions related to the research.
and sample were described.
The population
A discussion of the data
collection and analyses procedure concluded this

chapter.
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The study involved 227 students:
107 at the
University of Alberta, 50 at Camrose Lutheran College,

and 70 at the University of Lethbridge.
In terms of
proportion of the total sample this represents 47% from

the University of Alberta, 22% from Camrose Lutheran
College, and 31% from the University of Lethbridge.
Characteristics of Students
Gender
Females formed the majority of participants at
each university.
The percentage distribution
illustrated in Figure 3 indicate that 58% from U of A,

55% from C L C, and 68% from U of L were female.
The
high percentage of females could be attributed to the

collection venues; females may also be more likely to
volunteer (Borg & Gall, 1983).
Grade 12 Average
Respondents were asked to recall their grade 12
average.
Each university sets a minimum average
entrance requirement.
Both U of L and C L C accept
46
47
students with a minimum of 60%, while the U of A
requires a minimum of 70%.
Table 1 indicates the
distribution of averages reported for each university.

The U of L has the broadest range reported with a
minimum of 60% and a maximum of 97%.
C L C and the
U of A reported similar ranges with 60-89% and 70-97%

respectively.
Three different patterns emerged when
the reported averages were graphed (see Figures 4, 5,

and 6 ) . The majority of the students from the U of A
sample had averages between 75% and 90%.
Students at
C L c were more evenly distributed within the range.
high incidence of students from the U of L reported

averages between 65% and 70%.
research question:
These data address the
"What are the factors of influence
specific to students choosing the same university?"

The differences among the mean scores were
statistically significant at p <-05 according to the
results of analysis of variance.
Further post-hoc
statistical investigation using the Scheffe procedure

indicated the U of A sample was significantly higher
than either the C L C and U of L samples, but that mean
self-reported grades of C L C and U of L samples were
not significantly different.
48
Table 1
Self-Reported Grade Twelve Averages of Respondents
University
Mean
Median
U of A
83.02
82.00
C L C
73.79
U of L
71.69
Mode
Range
SD
82.00
70.00-97.00
6.38
73.00
60.00
60.00-89.00
8.49
70.00
70.00
60.00-97.00
7.40
49
0H
50
'i
60
1*
70
80
90
100
Average Grades
Figure 4: Distribution of Self-Reported Grade 12 Averages

of University of Alberta Respondents
50
12-
10-
8-
6-
50
60
70
80
90
100
Average Grades
Figure 5: Distribution or Self-Reported Grade 12 Averages

of Camrose Lutheran College Respondents
51
U. ofL.
70
80
90
100
Average Grades
Figure 6: Distribution of Self-Reported Grade 12 Averages

of University of Lethbridge Respondents
52
Degree
When students were asked to state the degree
sought, 16 choices were mentioned (see Table 2 ) .
Students attending U of A listed the most variety in
degrees sought.
This was to be expected since the U of
A is the largest university in the study.

the choice of 35% of U of A students.
Science was
This high
percentage could be attributed to the data collecting

location.
The library orientation sessions at the
U of A were held in the Cameron Library where the

science collection is stored; more science students may
have attended these sessions because of the location.
Equal numbers of students at C L C stated plans to
transfer to another institution, or to stay at C L C
and to complete an Arts degree.
C L C has
traditionally been a transfer institution and only

recently (1985) gained degree granting status-
The
U of L sample indicated that the majority sought either

a degree in Education or in Management.
Again, this
may not reflect the university population because

approximately 50% of students pursue Education or
Management.
53
Table 2
Percentage Distribution of Respondents at
Each Institution by Degree Sought
Degrees
Transfer
U of A
CLC
U of L
N = 94
N = 45
N = 55
2%
38%
9%
Engineering
10
Arts
17
38
11
Science
35
22
13
Education
Fine Arts
Pharmacy
Music
26
35
Sc. Nursing
Management
Dentistry
Law
10
Medicine
Arts & Science
Commerce
Graduate or Doctoral
13
Distance from Home

Data gathered regarding distance from the family
home to the university were grouped in three
categories:
0-25
kilometres; 26 - 200 kilometres;
and 200 - 9999 kilometres.
Two hundred kilometres was
arbitrarily chosen as the distance which allows

students to go home on weekends.
Figure 7 indicates
that 49% of the U of A students live in Edmonton and an

additional 21% live within 200 kilometres.
Only 4% of
C L C students reported Camrose as home, however, an

additional 55% live within 200 kilometres.
The U of L
sample indicated the highest percentage of students

(63%) traveling
distances greater than 200 kilometres.
The ten students who traveled distances greater than

1248 kilometres attended U of A and comprised 9% of
that sample (see Figure 7 ) .
Family Backgrounds
Education Level of Fathers and Mothers
The data generated from this question were
originally grouped in the eight categories listed on
the questionnaire (see Appendix B ) .
The categories
were combined so that the data could be displayed in
55
0-25 KM
26-200 KM
U.of A.CN-107)
C.LC.
U.ofL. (N-67)
200- 9999 KM
Figure 7: Comparison of Respondents at Three Institutions

on Distance from Family Home to School
CN-51)
56
four broader categories (see Figures 8 and 9 ) .
This
provided an opportunity to examine the difference among

educational levels of parents of respondents at the
three institutions.
Among fathers of U of A students, 45% had
graduated from university.
This was almost double the
percentage reported by students at the other two

universities.
Among fathers of U of L students, 41%
had completed some college or apprenticeship training.

This proportion represents the largest group at this
university.
A chi-square analysis indicated that there was a
significant relationship between the education achieved
by the father and the university choice (X*=.014, df=6,
p<.05) which suggests a true difference among the
groups.
The data gathered on the education level achieved
by the mothers indicate that the majority of the
mothers had some post secondary education such as
nursing or a university education.
Twenty-nine percent
of mothers of the C L C students had a university

education.
This percentage is higher than the same
category of mothers of students at the other
57
Not H.S. Grad.
HS. Grad.
Training
U.ofA.
(N-104)
Cl.C.
(N-51)
U.ofL.
CN-66)
Univer.
Figure 8: Comparison of Respondents on Education Level of Father
Figure 9: Comparison of Respondents on Education Level of Mother
58
universities.
A chi-square analysis indicated that
there was no significant relationship between the

education achieved by the mother and the student choice
2
of institution (X = .069, df=6, p>.05).

Occupations of Fathers and Mothers
Students were asked to name the occupation of both
mother and father.
This question produced a list of
225 different occupations.
In order to simplify coding
and reporting, occupations were grouped by skill levels

into the following 10 categories:
deceased or no
answer, labour, homemaker, service or clerical,

technical or trades, manager, professional, self
employed or entrepreneurial, and student.
The criteria
used for classifying these occupations included the

amount and level of training or education required.
The pattern of distributions (Table 3) indicates
that most mothers were classified as either homemakers,
service/clerical, or professionals.
The U of A
students reported the highest percentage (32%) of

mothers in the professional category.
The U of L
students reported the highest percentage of homemakers

(35%) while C L C students were equally high in both
categories (29%).
The clerical/service category had
59
Table 3
Percentage Distributions by Occupation of
Mothers and Fathers of Respondents
% Mothers
Categories
% Fathers
U o f A C L C U o f L
U of A
N-101
N-104
N-51
N-63
C L C U o f L
N-51
N-64
Deceased
2.0
3.2
1.9
1-6
Labour
S.9
3.9
6.3
4.8
2.0
9.4
Honeraaker
16.8
29.4
34.9
Service/Clerical
21.8
19.6
19.0
5.8
5.9
18-8
Technical/trades
10.9
7.8
9.5
22.1
25.5
17.2
2.0
2.0
4.6
9.6
13.7
10.9
31.7
29.4
15.9
43.3
21.6
14.1
5.9
5.9
4.8
12.5
31.4
26-6
Manager
Professional
Entrepreneurial/
self employed
60
approximately 20 percent at each university.
The pattern of distributions indicates that most
of the fathers were classified as either trades/
technology, professional, or self employed/
entrepreneurial.
U of A students reported the highest
percentage of fathers in the professions (43%) while

the other two universities each reported less than half
this number-
Self employed or entrepreneurial fathers
rated similarly with C L C (31%) and U of L (27%)

students, compared with U of A (13%) students.
This
could be attributed to the number of farmers and rural

agri-business men represented in the self employed/
entrepreneurial category.
Both C L C and U of L are
located in farming communities, perhaps

resulting in a higher incidence of fathers in this
category.
The results of this question compared with the
data regarding the educational achievements of parents
addressed the study question:
"Is there a relationship
between the socio-economic status of the parents and

the college or university selection process?"
There
appears to be such a relationship; students with

university educated fathers are more likely to chose
61
the large public university.
This relationship is
probably compcmded by the location of the university

in a large city with an abundance of employment
opportunities for educated men.
Family Tradition
Responses from the question regarding tradition
("Have any of your family members attended this
university?") indicated that the U of A was the only
university that showed a tendency to tradition, that
is, of other family members having attended the same
institution.
Figures 10 to 13 illustrate the
percentage of mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers

who had attended the same university.
In each case the
U of A shows a consistently higher percentage than the

other universities.
These results are consistent with the ratings
tabulated when students were asked to rate family
tradition as a factor in the choice process (Part D
#15).
One third (35%) of the U of A students responded
indicating a high importance compared to 19% at C L C

and 4% at U of L.
This may be a logical outcome of the
62
100 -i
50-
,2
UofA
Cl.C
UofL
N-107
N-50
N-67
yes
no
Institution
Figure 10: Percentage of Fathers of Respondents

100 i
50
yes
G no
UofA
C1.C
UofL
N-107
N-50
N-67
Institution
Figure 11: Percentage of Mothers of Respondents

63
100
&
50
yes
no
U. of A.
Cl.C.
U.ofL.
N-107
N-50
N-67
Institution
Figure 12: Percentage of Brothers of Respondents

100
&
50-
"5
yes
B no
U.ofA.
C1.C.
U.ofL.
N-107
N-50
N-67
Institution
Figure 13: Percentage of Sisters of Respondents

64
age of the university, a key factor in the evolution of
tradition.
Values and Goals

Responses from the "values and goals" questions
(Part B #1, #2, #3, and #4) were compared in order to
address one component of Research Question 1:
"What
factors influence students when they choose a

university?"
At least two thirds of the sample from
each university indicated that:
"it had been taken for
granted that you will pursue a university degree after

completing high school."
Students did vary at what grade level they first
considered attending university (Question B #2) but
differences were not statistically significantly (see
Table 4 ) . More than half of U of A students tended to
remember considering attending university earlier than
the other students.
This early interest during grades
K-6 could be attributed to the high percentage of

university educated fathers and the likelihood that a
university education is a valued goal in those homes.
The majority of U of L students (70%) and C L C
students (58%) reported first considering attending
65
Table 4
Percentage Distribution of Respondents By Grade Level

At Which They First Considered Attending University
Grade Level
University
U of A
K-3
4-6
7-9
10-12
104
19.2%
32.7%
31.7%
16.3%
C L C
50
14.0
28.0
32.0
26.0
U of L
67
9.0
20.9
35.8
34.3
66
university during grades 7-12.
This later
consideration may be a result of increased awareness of

educational opportunities that takes place during
junior and senior high school.
The relationship between choice of university and
plans for graduate work was statistically significant
(X^= 24.05, df=4, p <.05).
The percentage of responses
to this question (B #3) listed in Table 5, indicated

the highest percentage of students (56%) who had plans
for graduate school attended the U of A.
This could be
attributed to an awareness of graduate programs that

are offered at that university.
The students at the U
of L tended to respond to the undecided category (62%),

indicating that the option was seen as a possibility.
C L C students indicated most strongly (24%) that
graduate work was not planned.
For these students
obtaining a bachelor's degree seems to be the primary

goal.
When students were asked directly "Did plans for
graduate work affect your choice . . .", the responses
were surprisingly similar from all universities ("yes"
28%-31%).
Perhaps the knowledge of graduate work
shared by freshmen at universities is similar.
67
Table 5
Whether Or Not They Have Future Plans
For Study Beyond A Baccalaureate
University
u of A
105
No
Yes
Don't Know
12.4%
56.2%
31.4%
c L C
51
23.5
31.4
45.1
u of L
69
5.8
31.9
62.3
68
Generally students gain information regarding graduate
school while completing an undergraduate program.
Responses from the "employment opportunity"
questions (B #5 and #6) were compared in order to
address the question:
"How has economic opportunity
affected student choice?"
The results from all
universities were similar; 70% - 75% of the students

felt that the economic conditions and employment
opportunities had not affected choice of university.
Slightly more students attributed the knowledge of
future employment opportunities with program selection
than with university selection (see Table 6 ) . The
students at the public universities indicated a
slightly higher "yes" response, although this
difference was not statistically significant.
Sources of Information and Influence and

Factors of Significance
In order to determine comparative ratings for the
sources of information and influence and factors of
significance listed in Parts C and D of the
questionnaire and to highlight differences, categories
five and four (high importance) were combined, category
69
Table 6

Whether Or Not Program Choice Was
Affected by Economic Opportunities
University
No
Yes
106
52.8
47.2%
C L C
51
60.8
39.2
U of L
68
54.4
45.6
U of A
70
three was omitted because it indicated neutral
importance, and categories two and one (low importance)
were combined.
Category zero indicated not considered
or no information attributed to the factor or source

listed.
These frequencies were not included in the
calculation of high or low importance.
The resulting
ratings are presented in Tables 7, 8, and 9.

There were some differences among the responses of
students from the three universities.
U of A students rated the most important sources of
information and influence as follows: 1) mother (58%),
2) father (53%), and 3) visits to campus (39%).
The
most important factors of significance were rated to

be: 1) reputation of institution (78%), 2) reputation
of program (64%), 3) closeness to home (64%), and 4)
variety of courses offered (59%).
Students at C L C rated the most important sources
of information and influence as follows:
1) mother
(80%), 2) father (65%), 3) visits to campus (57%), and

4) recommendation of former students (51%).
important factors were:
The most
1) size of student body (78%),
2) student/professor ratio (73%), and 3) reputation of

university (67%).
71
Table 7
Percentage of Respondents at Each Institution

Indicating Relative Information of Selected Persons
Persons of Influence
and Information
Of
V 9f L
C L C
ft
%**
%
High Low
%
%
High Low
%
High
%
LOW
Religious advisor
22
14
30
10
41
21
20
Relatives/siblings
86
36
27
45
35
39
51
19
40
Friends
102
44
28
49
37
31
63
37
35
Father
100
53
16
50
65
10
60
47
22
Mother*
99
58
51
80
60
47
25
High School
Counsellor
90
30
30
49
33
35
60
32
38
Teachers
95
29
30
45
29
33
52
35
18
* Chi-square significance at p<.05

** Percents will not add up to 100 because middle category is omitted
72
Table 8

Indicating Relative Importance of Sources of Information and Influence
%** *
High Low
Campus visit *
93
39
22
46
57
12
47
29
24
University
Representative
71
18
28
40
36
22
39
27
19
Phone calls *
32
19
35
26
28
30
21
Letters *
61
10
24
45
29
24
49
17
24
Publications
74
22
22
45
27
26
45
17
33
Student Recommendation
83
35
22
44
51
20
47
35
22
t
%
High Low
t
t
High Low
Sources of Influence
and Information
* Chi-scuare significance at p< .05

73
Table 9
Indicating Significance of Selected Factors
V of
C L C
*** %
High Low
V Of L
%
t
High Low
Factors of
Significance
Close to home *
100 64
19
49
S3
18
56
35
29
Location
97
44
25
51
65
16
64
43
13
Housing
74
38
13
49
49
22
54
38
19
42
14
49
31
27
58
41
19
Cost of Living
85
*
High Lew
Tui*iJ n *
91
32
29
48
24
33
60
43
17
Scholarship
89
32
27
44
45
22
49
19
28
University Reputation
104
78
48
67
10
67
58
13
Program Reputation *
101 64
47
41
27
64
58
14
Religious
Atmosphere *
44
27
41
3:
39
28
25
Athletics
67
12
30
43
26
35
53
19
36
Student Population *
84
21
40
50
78
67
58
12
Special Program
91
46
24
47
33
31
64
30
45
Variety of Courses *
98
59
14
51
31
37
64
30
30
Student/Professor
Ratio *
64
12
29
49
73
60
62
Tradition *
54
15
28
34
10
41
25
32
Grad School Prep.
68
31
20
42
31
20
39
16
24
* Chi-square significance at p< .05

74
Students at U of L rated the most important
sources of information and influence to be: 1) mother
(47%) and father (47%), 2) friends (37%), and 3)
student recommendation (35%).
factors were:
The most important
1) student/professor ratio (62%), 2)
size of student body (53%), reputation of institution

(58%), and reputation of the program (58%).
Several sources and factors were rated highly by
students at all universities.
A chi-square analysis
indicated that there was a significant relationship

between the choice of university and the following
factors:
mother, personal letters from institution,
telephone calls from institution, visits to campus,

closeness to home, tuition costs, reputation of
program, religious atmosphere, size of student
population, specialized programs offered, variety of
courses offered, student/professor ratio, and family
tradition.
This summary is confined to only those factors and
sources to be considered of major importance.
Religious atmosphere of the university was rated to
have low importance to both public institutions, U of A
(27%) and U of L (25%), and of high importance by only
75
44% of C L C students.
Religious atmosphere was not
considered (rated 0) by 59% of students at both U of A

and U of L, and by 20% of students at C L C-
High
school counsellors were rated as unimportant by all

institutions.
Final Choice
The majority of students surveyed indicated that
they considered and applied to only one or two
universities.
Only 76 (33%) of the 227 students
surveyed indicated that they were not attending the

university of first choice.
Table 10 indicates the
distribution of students and the variety of reasons

offered to explain the situation.
The cost factor prevented some students at the
U of A from attending the University of Toronto (4) or
the University of British Columbia (4). Similarly, the
cost factor prevented some respondents at the U of L
from attending the University of Victoria (3), Brigham
Young University (2), or other institutions in
Alberta (3). The reasons for not attending the first
choice university classified as "other" included:
"not
ready for University of Victoria yet", "parents don't
76
Table 10
Frequency of Mention of Reasons For Not
Attending the First Choice University
Institution
Reason
U of A
G.P. A. too low
Cost factor
C L C
U of L
Total N
10
10
11
24
Lacking academic
credentials
11
Too far from home
15
Other
21
77
approve of school so far away (U.C.L.A., U.W.O.)", "too
large", "letter of acceptance arrived too late",
"homesickness", "no friends there", "will go there for
grad studies (U of T ) " , "applied for a sports
scholarship there and didn't get it (Ohio State)", "no
art portfolio (A.C.A.)", "education second choice to
photography (Ryerson)", and "applied too late".
Students were asked if the university they were
attending was their parents
first choice for them
(Part E #4). The response was overwhelmingly "Yes" at

U of A (76%) and C L C (64%), but only 38% "Yes" at
U of L.
The high "No" response by U of L
difficult to explain.
parents is
As students at the U of L travel
greater distances to school, parents may prefer

students to attend closer to home.
Qualitative Analysis
Open-ended questions in Part E asked students to
state the single most important reason for selecting
the university they were attending and to comment on
how they felt about the choice.
Students at the U of A
responded with a variety of reasons; however, closeness

to home, program availability, and reputation of
78
program were the most mentioned reasons.
Size of
institution and the caring atmosphere were the two

reasons mentioned most frequently by students at C L C.
Closeness to home, size, and low student/teacher ratio
were the most frequently mentioned factors at U of L.
These answers are consistant with the ratings
established earlier in Part D, which involved rating
the factors of significance.
Most students stated they were satisfied or
pleased with their choice.
Several added that it was
also a "scary" experience.
This comment appeared to be
more frequent among the U of A students, even though,

the data were collected at the U of A several days and
weeks after classes had commenced allowing students
time to adjust to the university setting.
Summary
This study was designed to determine those factors
that students considered influential or significant
during the university or college selection process.
The results show that there are sources of information
and influence and factors of significance which are
important to the majority of students.
The most
79
influential persons and information sources are mothers
and fathers.
Collectively mothers were rated the more
influential person.
Students reported that visits to campus were very
important influential factors and sources of
information.
Both the U of A and C L C encourage
prospective students to visit the campus before making

a final decision.
The recommendation of former
students was established as another source of influence

which is important for students attending C L C and the
U of L, the two smaller universities.
The factors which tend to be important to students
at the U of A were not the same factors important to
students attending C L C and the U of L.
U of A
students rated reputation of the institution,

reputation of the program, variety of courses offered,
and proximity to home as important factors in their
choice.
C L C and U of L students rated
student/professor ratio and student body size as most

significant factors.
These students rated reputation
of the institution and reputation of the program as

other important factors.
Results of the study indicate
that students who attend smaller universities tend to
80
value size of the institution and the different
learning environment.
The recent popularity of business and medical
professional schools within universities prompted the
question about the apparent discrepancy between
enrolling in these programs and economic opportunities
for graduates.
The findings indicate that students do
not engage in serious analysis of the economic

situation even though some consider this factor when
choosing a university.
Smaller institutions appear to attract students
whose parents have less formal education as indicated
by the educational background the occupation(s) of the
parents.
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS, IMPLICATIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS
The following section includes a discussion of the

major findings of the study organized according to each
research question.
Implications of the study and
recommendations for further research are also

discussed.
Maior Findings According to

Research Questions
The Hossler & Gallagher model of student choice
was used to guide the study.
This model was adapted to
include specific factors relevant to the conditions of

the study.
A questionnaire was used to identify the
factors that influence Alberta students in the

university selection process.
This questionnaire
consisted of items taken from similar studies by

Sanders (1986), Lolli and Scannell (1983), Litten,
Sullivan, and Brodigan (1983), and Erdmann (1983) and
items designed by the researcher.
82
What factors influence students when they choose a
university?
Areas of examination included:
a)
sources of information,
b)
individuals of influence,
c)
characteristics of student, such as; gender,

ability, values, goals, and family, and
d)
characteristics and activities of

institutions.
The findings reported in Chapter 4 regarding

factors that influence students in selecting a college
or university are similar to the findings of previous
research.
Students from all institutions reported that
mothers were the most important source of information

and influence.
This rating perhaps could be attributed
to the active role most mothers are believed to play in

their children's moral and secular education.
also tend to disseminate information.
Mothers
Students at
U of A and C L C rated mothers as clearly the single

most important person in a position to influence.
Mothers and fathers were rated as equally important by
U of L students.
Isherwood (1988) reported similar
83
findings after surveying English speaking high school
students in Quebec.
Students who chose to attend the U of A, the large
public institution, appeared to be influenced by
reputation of the institution and programs, variety of
courses, closeness to home, and specialized programs.
The course offerings tended to dominate the decision
making process.
Since 49% of the U of A students had
family homes in the Edmonton area, proximity to home

may be a more important factor than was reported.
Rating the course offering as a very influential factor
in the selection process is intellectually a more
respectable response.
Students who chose C L C or U of L valued the size
of the student population and the student/professor
ratio and reputation of the university.
The first two
features are characteristic of smaller institutions and

obviously influential factors for students wanting to
attend a university where student population and the
student/professor ratio are low.
In-house research at
C L C has produced similar findings (Camrose Lutheran

College, 1988-89).
The reputation of the program and tuition costs
84
were also rated as influential factors by U of L
students.
The U of L programs mentioned by those
students were Education and Management, both well

established and highly reputed.
The rating of tuition
costs as an influential factor at U of L is a puzzle.

Tuition costs among the publicly funded universities
vary little.
The privately funded C L C levies tuition
fees that are twice as high as the publicly funded

universities.
A possible explanation for this rating
could be that students confused total living costs with

tuition costs and concluded that living in a smaller
city would be less expensive than in the large city.
Another possible explanation could be that students
compared the fees at U of L with the other small
universities in the province (Concordia College and
Kings College) and did find them to be much lower.
The characteristics of the student did vary from
one university to another.
A majority of students from
the U of A indicated that deciding to attend university

had occurred as early as elementary school.
These
students also indicated most often that graduate work

was planned.
It appears that U of A students have made
educational plans and set goals earlier than the other
85
students.
Since there are more university graduates
among U of A fathers, a university education probably

is valued and encouraged in these families.
Students at the U of A appeared most academically
able, based on self-reported grade twelve average as
the measure used to assess ability.
The entrance
requirements dictate that no student will be accepted

with an average lower than 70%.
The calculated mean
was 83%; however, this may have been affected by the

method of data collection at the U of A.
The majority
of U of A students had attended library orientation

sessions in September and, therefore, completed the
questionnaire earlier than did respondents at the other
two institutions.
The library orientation sessions may
have been perceived as important to students who had

strong academic records. The remaining students who
attended library orientation sessions in October and
who completed the questionnaire, reported having lower
averages.
The October sessions appeared to be
attracting the "normal" student who had been to classes

for a month and discovered the need for the session or
was required by a professor to attend the session.
mean average of the respondents may not reflect the
The
86
academic record of the typical student at U of A.
Students who chose to attend C L C and U of L had
similar grade 12 averages (72 and 73% respectively).
The entrance requirements at both colleges require a
minimum of 60%.
The distribution of averages
indicates an even distribution of averages across the

range.
The U of L students reported a high number of
students with averages between 60% and 70%.

students would not be admitted to the U of A-
These
Perhaps
the U of L is accommodating the less able student who

wishes to attend a public university.
Some characteristics and activities are specific
to individual universities.
Campus visits are rated as
important events by students at both U of A and c L C.

Students at C L C rated campus visits and personal
letters from the institution as influential factors.
Perhaps the size of the institution makes these
activities successful.
The religious atmosphere of C L
C was rated by 31% of the students as an important

factor.
The religious atmosphere is perceived as
advantageous to these students and is obviously

acceptable to the other students.
87
What are the factors of influence specific to students
choosing the same university?
Students at the U of A reported the highest
percentage of university educated fathers, the highest
percentage of students whose family home is in the
area, and the highest high school averages.
These
students also pursued a wide variety of degreesStudents attending c L C usually lived within
200 kilometres of the institution.
This finding was
consistent with in-house statistics of the 1988

freshmen class (E. Pinno, personal communication,
September 29, 1989).
Most stated that a small
university with smaller class sizes is very important.

One half of the students planned to complete a
bachelor's degree and the other half planned to
transfer to another institution.
One third of the
students were enthusiastic about the religious

atmosphere of the college while the other two thirds
had no objection to it or did not comment.
Students at the U of L stated that they valued the
small public university and low student/professor
ratio.
The students were as likely to come from
88
distances greater than 200 kilometres as less than 200
kilometres to attend.
In-house statistics of the 1988
freshmen indicated that 60%-70% of students come from

distances less than 200 kilometres (P. Haney, personal
communication, September 29, 1989).
to serve a large geographic area.
The U of L appears
The most unusual
factor identified among students was that the U of L

was not the first choice of 62% of the parents.
These
students appear to have made a decision which was

1
contrary to the parents wishes.
How have economic opportunities affected student
choice?
This question was included because of the apparent
trend for students to seek degrees in the fields of
business and medical sciences.
The results of the
survey indicated that an equal number of students

consider economic opportunities as do not consider
economic opportunities when choosing a university.
The
open-ended question allowed the students to comment on

this question.
None of the answers indicated a serious
analysis of the economic prospects for the future.
89
Most responses followed the pattern "there will always
be a need for doctors or whatever".
Is there a relationship between the socio-economic
status of the parents and the college or university
selection process?
Students at U of A reported the highest incidence
of university educated fathers and professional
occupations.
The parents of students at C L C and
U of L had less formal education and reported a high

percentage of homemaker mothers and self employed or
entrepreneurial fathers.
The differences in the
economic and geographical settings of the institutions

may affect the relationship between the socio-economic
status of the family and the educational opportunities
or expectations for students in the family.
Implications for Institutions

The findings of this study have implications for
the participating universities.
Results indicate that
each institution is using a variety of marketing

strategies to provide students with information and to
90
encourage students to apply for admission.
Since
results of this research indicate that parents,

particularly mothers, are clearly the most influential
person in the process, it is recommended that
universities also advertiso to mothers.
This may
involve articles in publications read by women,

specific information made available at community
locations, or a direct approach in the literature sent
to the student.
The students at U of A reported having
contemplated a university education while still in
elementary school.
Students at both C L C and U of L
reported having made the decision to attend university

at a later grade level.
These findings indicate that
students do plan at various grade levels in elementary,

junior, and senior high schools.
Universities
generally focus marketing strategies at high school

students, however, directing appropriate information to
students in elementary and junior high school could be
another effective approach to influencing student
choice.
Universities employ marketing strategies to
identify potential students and to provide information
91
to those students-
Vigorous marketing may fail to
identify the potential student or to portray the

insititution accurately if the factors students
consider in the selection process as identified here
are not considered.
U of A
Students choosing to attend the U of A value the
reputation of the institution and programs, the variety
of courses and specialized programs offered, and the
close proximity to home.
These features or
characteristics of the university should be promoted in

marketing the university.
The convenience of living
close to or at home and at the same time attending a

well respected institution was important for
approximately one-half of the sample of freshmen
students surveyed.
If the university can maintain and
publicize the reputation of a wide variety of programs,

it can probably anticipate attracting numerous students
from the Edmonton area.
C L C
Students who choose to attend C L C value the size
92
of the student body, the student/professor ratio and
the rural location.
Marketing procedures at C L C have
included personal telephone calls to interested

students and open house style campus visits.
Several
students were influenced by these marketing strategies.

C L C marketing should emphasize a reputation for
offering a good program with a better than normal
responsiveness between faculty and student body.
The
limited course offerings do not seem to be a drawback

because the programs offered are transferable to other
institutions.
Although the institution is degree
granting, the transfer option is attractive to students

wishing to adjust to university life gradually by
attending a small institution for the first years of a
degree.
C L C should consider the consequences of
expansion on the established group of students who find
the institution a first choice.
Those students who
value the small, personalized, and caring aspects may

not favor significant enrollment increases that may
change the nature of the institution.
93
U of L
Students attending the U of L indicated different
influential factors than either C L C or U of Atravel much farther from home to attend.
They
Many have
indicated that their parents did not agree with the

choice.
This disagreement with parental choice was
consistent across the respondents and was not limited

to students with either high or low reported grade 12
averages.
The students also value the small university
setting, low student/professor ratio, and the

reputation of the specialized programs.
Marketing strategies should promote those
characteristics of the institution that the students
value.
If the university wishes to develop a broader
student appeal it would be wise to direct information

to students designed to reassure them that quality and
characteristics of a "small" university will not be
sacrificed due to increased enrollment-
Recommendations for Further Research

Clearly mothers are influential people in the
college or university selection process.
Further
research investigating the nature of the role of
94
mothers would be of value-
Does the mother affect the
process through information dissemination or is her

involvement more personal?
The economic contribution
modern mothers are making to the family may have

changed the nature of role of mother in the choice
process.
Further research into the role of the traditional
information givers, tha*c is, high school counsellors
and university representatives would be beneficial.
These sources were rated by the majority of students as
of little or no importance-
This apparent
ineffectiveness could be attributed to method of

delivery or change in tradition; however, this finding
is consistent with other research.
Although few students acknowledged that academic
grade 12 standing determined university choice, further
research might clarify the situation.
Degree granting
institutions in the province of Alberta do not have

standardized entrance requirements.
This factor may
have a profound effect on the development of existing

institutions and the creation of new institutions in
the future.
95
References
Astin, A. (1985). Achieving academic excellence.
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
San
The American Association of Collegiate Registrars and

Admissions Officers and The College Board. (1980).
Undergraduate admissions: The realities of
institutional policies, practices, and procedures.
New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Barre, M. E. (1970). College information and guidance.
(Series 10: Career Information and Development).
Guidance Monograph Series. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Bidelmann, K. G. (1986). Selecting a college: A check
list approach. Highlights: An ERIC/CAPS Fact
Sheet. Ann Arbor, MI: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Counseling and Personnel Services. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 266 339).
Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1983). Educational
research: An introduction (4th ed.) New York:
Longman.
Bowers, T. A., & Pugh, R. C. (1973). Factors
underlying college choice by students and parents.
Journal of College Student Personnel. 17, 220-224.
Cain, P. P. & McClintock, J. (1984). The abc's of
choice. Journal of College Admissions. 27(105),
15-21Camrose Lutheran College. (1988-89).
survey). Unpublished raw data.
(New student
Chapman, D. W. (1981). A model of student choice.

Journal of Higher Education. 52: 490-505.
Chapman, R. G. (1979). Pricing policy and the college
choice process. Research in Higher Education.
10(1), 35-57.
96
Chapman, R. G. (1984) . Toward a -theory of college
choice; A model of college search and choice
behavior. Edmonton: University of Alberta.
Chapman, R. G., & Jackson, R. (1987). College choices
of academically able students: The influence of
no-need financial aid and other factors (Research
Monograph No. 10). New York: College Entrance
Examination Board.
The College Board. (1930). Marketing in college
admissions: A broadening of perspectives. New
York: Author.
Conklin, M. E., & Dailey, A. R. (1981). Does
consistency of parental educational encouragement
matter for secondary school students? Sociology
of Education. 54, 254-262.
Dembowski, F. L. (1980). A model for predicting
student college choice. College and University.
55(2), 103-112.
Erdmann, D. G. (1983). An examination of factors
influencing student choice in the college
selection process. Journal of College Admissions.
27(100), 3-6.
Fuller, W. c , Manski, C. F., & wise, D. A. (1982).
New evidence on the economic determinants of post
secondary schooling choices. Journal of Human
Resources. 17(4), 477-495.
Hossler, D. (1984). Enrollment management.
College Entrance Examination Board.
New York:
Hossler, D., & Gallagher, K. S. (1987). Studying

student college choice: A three phase model and
the implications for policy makers. College and
University. 62(3), 207-221.
How do students choose a college? (1986) Change. 18
(January/February), 29-32.
97
Ilanfeldt, W. (1980). Achieving optimal enrollments
and tuition revenues; A guide to m o d e m methods
of market research, student recruitment, and
institutional pricing. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Isherwood, G. B. (1988, June). College choice: A
survey of English-speaking high school students.
Paper presented at the meeting of the Canadian
Association for the Study of Educational
Administration Annual Conference, Windsor, Ont.
Johnson, R- J., & Chapman, D. W. (1979). An assessment
of college literature: Does the high school
senior understand it? Research in Higher
Education. 11(4), 309-319.
Johnstone, B- D. (1986). Sharing the costs of higher
education. New York: College Entrance
Examination Board.
Kellaris, J. J. & Kellaris, w., Jr. (1988). An
exploration of the factors influencing students
college choice decision at a small college.
College and University. 63(2), 187-197.
Kohn, M- G., Mandki, C. F., & Mundel, D- S. (1974). An

empirical investigation of factors which influence
college-going behavior. (Report NSF-R-1470).
Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
Jackson, G. (1978). Financial aid and student
enrollment. Journal of Higher Education. 49, 548574.
Litten, L. H. (1979). Market structure and
institutional position in .geographic market
segments. Research in Higher Education. 11.(1) ,
59-83.
Litten, L. (1982). Different strokes in the
application pool: Some refinements in a model of
student choice. Journal of Higher Education. 4,
383 -402.
98
Litten, L. H., & Brodigan, D. L. (1982). On being
heard in a noisy world: Matching messages and
media in college marketing. College and
University. 57(3), 242-264.
Litten, L. H., Sullivan, D., & Brodigan, D. L. (1983).
Applying market research in college admissions.
New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Lolli, A., & Scannell, J. (1983). Expanding the focus
of admissions marketing utility. College and
University, 59(1), 5-28.
MacDermott, K. G., Conn, P. A., & Owen, J. W. (1987).
The influence of parental education level on
college choice. The Journal of College
Admissions. 115, 3-10.
Maguire, J., & Lay, J. (1981). Modeling the college
choice process: Image and decision. College and
University, 56(2), 123-139.
Manski, C. F., & Wise, D. A. (1983). College choice in
America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Murphy, P. E. (1981). Consumer buying roles in college
choice: Parents and students perceptions.
College and University. 56(2), 140-150.
1
Parents: A key to college choice.

31-33.
(1986) Change. 18,
Puffet, N. E. (1983). The college selection process:

Persons of influence and factors of significance.
Dissertation Abstracts International. 44/05A.
(University Microfilms No. 83-22236)
Radner, R. & Miller, L. S. (1975). Demand and supply
in U.S. higher education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Reddin, W. J. (1967).
McGraw-Hill.
Campus countdown.
Canada:
99
Research and Information Support. (March 1988).
Enrollment and population trends: A background
paper. Unpublished manuscript.
Sanders, N. F. (1986). The college selection process:
Research within the twelfth-grade marketplace.
The Journal of College of Admissions. Spring,
24-27.
Terkla, D. G. & Wright, S. M. (1986, June).
Enrollment management: Factors that influence
college choice. Paper presented at the Annual
Forum of the Association for Institution Research,
Orlando, FL.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 280389)
Tillery, D. (1973). Distribution and differentiation
of youth: A study of transition from school to
college. Cambridge, MA: Bal1inger.
Venti, s . F. & Wise, D. A. (1982). Test scores,
educational opportunities, and individual choice.
Journal of Public Economics. 18. 35-63.
Welki, A. M. & Navratil, F. J. (1987). The role of the
applicants perceptions in the choice of a
college. College and University. 62(2), 147-160.
1
Whitlock, B. W. (1978). Don't hold them back: A

critigue and guide to new high school-college
articulation models. New York: College Entrance
Examination Board.
Williams, J. L. (Ed.). (1973). Determinants of
universitv/college choice in Wales (Summary
report). Wales: University of Wales.
Zemsky, R. & Oedel, P. (1983). The structure of
college choice. New York: College Entrance
Examination Board.
APPENDIX A
VOLUNTEER CONSENT LETTER
The
University of
Lethbridge
4401 University Drive

Lethbridge, Alberta. Canada
TtK 3M4
403-329-2251
101
FACULTY Of EDUCATION
September 1988
Dear Questionnaire Respondent:
Thank you for volunteering to participate in this research project. The questionnaire
should take only fifteen or twenty minutes of your time to complete.
The questionnaire survey is a major part of a study being conducted at three universities
and designed to provide information about factors that influence students during the
college/university selection process. The results of the study will be published in a thesis
mat is required for partial fulfillment of a graduate degree.
There are no identifying marks on the questionnaire ensuring that your participation will be
kept anonymous. You are under no obligation to complete the questionnaire and may
withdraw at any time. However, a high response rate is essential if the results of the
survey are to contribute to a better understanding of the factors affecting the
college/university choice process. Accordingly, your completed questionnaire is an
important and valued part of the study.
Thank you for your time. If you have any questions please feel free to call me at 444-0083
or my supervising professor. Dr. Myma L. Greene, at 329-2424. Please hand in the
questionnaire as you leave the room.
Sincerely,
Roslyn Beswick
Faculty of Education Graduate Studies
The University of Lethbridge
APPENDIX B
QUESTIONNAIRE
103
Survey of First-Year University Students

All references to university' refer to both college and university. Please respond to the following
items by checking the appropriate response or by printing the information requested.
Part A: Parents and Family
Please indicate the highest level of formal education achieved by your parents. Place a check mark
on the space next to the appropriate description for each parent.
Father
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Mother
less than high school

some high school
graduated from high school
college or apprenticeship training
professional diploma (e.g. RN)
bachelor's degree (e.g. B.A., B.Sc.)
advanced degree (MJEd., M.B.A., M.D.)
other (please specify)
Have any of your family members attended ihis university?

9. Mother
10. Father
Yes
Yes
No
No
11. Brothers)
12. Sister(s)
13. Mother's occupation is

14. Father's occupation is
Yes
Yes
No
No
.
.
Part B: Values and Goals

1. Would you say that in your home it has been taken
for granted that you will pursue a university
degree after completing high school?
Yes
No
2. At what grade level did you first consider attending university? Check the appropriate level.
K-3
4-6
3 . Do you plan on earning more

than a bachelor's degree?
7-9
Yes
4 . If yes, did your plans for graduate work

affect your choice of this university?
5. Was your choice of a university affected by your
knowledge of future employment opportunities?
If yes, please specify
6. Was your choice of program (e.g. education, fine arts,
business) affected by your knowledge of future
employment opportunities?
If yes, please specify.
10-12
No
Don't know
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Part C: Sources of Information and Influence

The following is a list of persons or contacts which may have influenced you when making a
choice of a university to attend. Please indicate the degree of importance of each item by circling
the appropriate number according to the following scale:
5
4
3
2
1
0
High importance
Moderate importance
Low importance
Not important
Very
Important
Not
Important
1. teachers
2. high school counsellors
3. mother
4. father
5. friends
6. relatives/siblings
7. religious advisor (e.g. pastor)
8. recommendation of former student
9. college publications
10. personal letters from institution
1L
11. telephone calls from institution
12. university representatives
]L
13. visits to campus
]L
14. other (please specify and rate")
]L
Part D:
Other Factors of Significance
The following is a list of factors you may have considered when you were making your choice of a
university to attend. Please indicate the degree of importance of each item by circling the
appropriate number according to the following scale:
5
4
3
2
1
0
High importance
Moderate importance
Low importance
Not important
Very
Important
Not
Important
1. Closeness to home
2. Location (e.g. size of city or town)
3 . Availability of housing
4.
5. Tuition costs
6.
7. Reputation of institution
8. Reputation of program
9. Religious atmosphere
10. Athletic opportunities
]L
11. Size of student population
]L
12. Specialized programs offered
13. Variety of courses offered
14. Student/professor ratio
15. Family tradition
16. Preparation for graduate school
Cost of living
Scholarships available
17. Other important factors you considered:
106
Part E: Final Choice
1. Please list in order of preference the universities which you considered attending. Indicate
with a check if you applied for admission and if you were accepted by that institution.
Universities
Considered
Applied for
Admission Accepted
1.
2.
3.
4. .
2. What was the single most determining factor in the selection of the university vou are
currently attending?
3 . If you are not attending your first choice university, please indicate the reasons why by
checking the appropriate space.
G. P. A. too low
Cost factor
Lacking academic prerequisites
Too far from home
Other (please specify)
4. How do you feel now about your choice of a university?
Part F: Background Information

1. Sex: Male
Female
2. What was your grade twelve average?
3. What degree do you hope to earn at this university?

4. How far is this university from your family home?
Thank you
km

Factors Influencing University Selection

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Factors Influencing University Selection

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A STUDY OF FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH

STUDENT CHOICE IN THE

ROSLYN LOUISE KELLY BESWICK

Every year university bound graduating high school

The selection process typically

spans a number of years and involves considering many

Identifying those factors that influence

students during the selection process was the goal of

Two hundred twenty-seven first year

university students attending one of three degree

College and the University of Lethbridge, the two

University of Alberta students

value reputation of the institution, reputation of the

Lutheran College and University of Lethbridge students

The writer wishes to extend sincere appreciation

In such a study numerous

students also play a part in the outcome, so a special

Purpose of the Study

Significance of the Problem

Delimitations and Limitations

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Selection of University Students

Selection on the Basis of Location

Nature of the Instrument

Validating the Questionnaire

Distance from Home

Education Level of Fathers

Occupations of Fathers and Mothers

Values and Goals

Sources of Information and Influence

DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS, IMPLICATIONS AND

Implications for Institutions

Recommendations for Further Research

Self-Reported Grade 12 Averages of

Percentage Distribution of Respondents at

Percentage Distributions by Occupation of

Percentage Distribution of Respondents by

Percentage of Respondents Indicating Whether

Percentage of Respondents Indicating

Percentage of Respondents at Each

Percentage of Respondents at Each

Percentage of Respondents at Each

Frequency of Mention of Reasons for Not

Model of Influences on Student College Choice

A Three Phase Model of College Choice

Percentage of Female and Male Respondents

Distribution of Self-Reported Grade 12

Distribution of Self-Reported Grade 12

Distribution of Self-Reported Grade 12

Comparison of Respondents at Three

Comparison of Respondents on Education

Comparison of Respondents on Education

Percentage of Fathers of Respondents

Percentage of Mothers of Respondents

Percentage of Brothers of Respondents

Percentage of Sisters of Respondents

The decision whether or not to continue

with post secondary education and the choice of an

For those students considering

attending a university, the selection process probably

This process typically spans a

number of years and may have begun in early childhood